Posted on 10/17/2003 4:04:27 PM PDT by TXLibertarian
I wholly agree with that. There is but one God, although people call It by many names.
I had my doubts that the Pacific Ocean really existed until I actually saw it and heard its roar and jumped in it. Now I have neither faith in its existence nor doubts that it might not exist.
At least in my area, every union-endorsed candidate is rabidly anti-gun (with the exception of Buchanan - my guy). It always leaves me shaking my head, wondering who the hell the driver voted for.
Why is it that theists are so convinced of the merits of this assertion, as if the concept of human rights simply cannot exist in the absense of religion?
So you believe, anyway.
He's God.
Which one? Zeus, from his throne on Mount Olympus, maybe? How about Shiva? Huitzilopochtli? Odin? Isis? Perhaps Ferd, the king of the Invisible Pink Unicorns? How about Xarcon, the superadvanced alien from the universe next door, who created our universe as part of his qualifying test for his degree in cosmogenics?
Hint: Even if you could actually prove that some intelligence had to have made our universe, you haven't demonstrated that it must be Yahweh as described in the Bible.
Example: Using observation of physical universal constants. Observing biochemistry in action.
I've observed them both, I didn't see any deities involved. What else have you got?
Methinks you're looking in the wrong place. This has nothing to do with their skins.
My theory is that "civilized" countries promote and nourish a growing body of mental cases, free to appear normal and increasingly discovering the value of the courts to promote their main purpose in life: to control others.
There is the hard way to do it, become a Bill Gates or a Ted Kennedy. Or feed your internal devils by imposing your sick limited intellect and feeling of (justified) inadequacy by forcing others to conform to your neurotic delusions.
That the courts have lent themselves to supporting this pathology will be the subject of thousands of future doctoral discertations.
Reminds me of my daugher arguing with me. When she was in the second grade.
Assertions are not facts. Ever.
And the only ones who travel that road with absolute certainty are the very young; and the very ignorant.
It's strange that the concept of infinity is still a "struggle" for some people. I don't know if it is the fault of our educational system or of tethers to some false notion of a religious heritage. It certainly is one of the more common ways for mystics to break with reality.
Infinity, and the infinitessimal, are merely concepts that derive from abstracting out physically observable units. That's why they are necessary concepts of mathematics. Yet some people insist on presuming there are infinite quantities of observable physical phenomenon. This is a remarkable suspension of disbelief since it is not even possible to conceive of the existence of an infinite physical quantity.
People's almost devout misapplication of the relatively simple concept of infinity to observable phenomena is a perfect illustration of how a person can be taught to believe anything.
That's a good analogy I guess, but it's not a good argument in favor of your point of view.
Sure, if you're religious and heterosexual in a country that is overwhelmingly religious and heterosexual, you see the world around you and say, "Things are just fine the way they are, why change anything?"
On the other hand, if you're homosexual or atheist, you hear someone making those statements and you say, "Uh, wait a minute. Everything may be fine for you, but what about us?"
I don't think there's anything wrong with minorities (be they racial, religious, or sexual) publicly affirming their validity, especially when some people are so insistent on telling them to just shut up, implying that their concerns are of no importance.
And I say this as a white, straight, Christian male. But despite that, I'm not so disingenuous as to pretend that unless I'm the one being aggrieved, everything's hunky dorey.
You seem quite certain of that.
It would seem all belief systems have equal credibility. The belief that one apple and one apple makes two apples is as religious as one that says it makes three apricots. How nihilistic of you.
Of course, you learn in epistomology 101 that such a notion must necessarily undercut your own assertion as well.
So you believe, anyway.
No ... this is straight observation; the odds against chance being responsible are too high to have ever happened in the observed lifetime of the universe.
Hint: Even if you could actually prove that some intelligence had to have made our universe, you haven't demonstrated that it must be Yahweh as described in the Bible.
I'm not trying to prove that the God of the Bible created the universe. SOMEONE did as the odds against natural formation are so laughable that you would have to win the lottery every day of your life to duplicate it.
I'm not talking about belief or faith in deducing the existence of an intelligence guiding creation.
30 physical constants in the universe are EXACTLY what's needed to provide life ot the universe. Move any of them by more than 2% higher or lower and life becomes IMPOSSIBLE.
Biochemistry : abiogenisis cannot be duplicated. There's not even a model that allows for it. Just evolutionary 'faith' that it had to happen.
Look at a bee, mathematically it should not be able to fly, yet it does.
There is evidence of an intelligent design across the universe.
It take more faith to deny the existence of a God than it does to merely acknowledge it's presence.
Inferences don't count; indeed, they feed the continuing mindless non-discussion.
I can make the distinction between a personal belief and an absolute certainty, thankyouverymuch.
Hate to break it to you, but he's right. Go to websters and you will be proved wrong. See post #126.
Some people don't think anything as important as human rights should have a rational basis.
If the only way to persuade a moron to respect my rights is through fear of fire and brimstone, then I'm all for it. However, for those who are condemned to think, you can't beat rational persuasion.
Using proper English, you are agnostic, not atheist .... please see post 126 for the websters excerpt.
How is posting a dictionary entry and then drawing logical conclusions from it trickery ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.